A popular online forum is expected to challenge Australia’s “legally erroneous” social media ban for children, but it won’t flout the change.
Hundreds of thousands of Australians under 16 will no longer be able to access social media platforms like YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat from Wednesday.
Reddit and Kick were added to the “dynamic” ban list in early November, with platforms responsible for kicking off existing under-16 account holders and preventing any new ones from signing up.
The former has enlisted barrister Perry Herzfeld SC to mount a legal challenge, supported by law firm Thomson Geer, the Australian Financial Review reported.
A spokesperson for the San Francisco-based platform did not deny the company was preparing a lawsuit.
“The only decision we’ve made is to comply with the law,” they said.
In a post to users on Tuesday morning, Reddit spelled out how it would comply with the ban despite disagreeing with its scope, effectiveness and privacy implications.
“By limiting account eligibility and putting identity tests on internet usage, this law undermines everyone’s right to both free expression and privacy, as well as account-specific protections,” the post read.
“We also believe the law’s application to Reddit (a pseudonymous, text-based forum overwhelmingly used by adults) is arbitrary, legally erroneous, and goes far beyond the original intent of the Australian parliament, especially when other obvious platforms are exempt.”
Under changes on the platform, new Australian users will provide their birthdate during sign up and all account holders will be subject to an “age prediction model”.
If they are believed to belong to a user under 16, accounts will be suspended, but there will be an opportunity for users to appeal and verify their ages.
Teen account holders under 18 will also be funnelled into a version of the platform with more protective safety features, including stricter chat settings and no access to not-safe-for-work or mature content.
Ballarat schoolgirl Pippa Martin, 13, was feeling positive about getting her attention back as she snuck final scrolls of her social media accounts before the ban came into effect.
“Sometimes I see videos of someone else playing the piano and I think I’m never going to be that good and I should just stop trying,” she told AAP.
“I feel like now I’ll start playing the piano more without my apps.”
The social media age limit is attempting to protect children from online harms and what Ms Anika Wells has described as “predatory algorithms”.
Pippa said she had previously been exposed to harmful content, including a video of American political activist Charlie Kirk being fatally shot in September.
She hoped to feel more present with her friends and thinks the ban will help prevent “toxic” fears of missing out on events that she sees her peers post about.
Nick Leech, 15, was concerned about the requirement for an ID or facial scanning to verify his age post-ban due to data security issues.
He supported the idea of reducing social media use for minors, but hoped maintaining his long-distance friendships isn’t made harder.
“I mainly use Snapchat to text and talk to them, and other stuff like Instagram and Facebook to see what’s happening in their lives,” he said.
Lizzie Muller, the mother of a 14-year-old girl, doesn’t believe the ban will work how the government wants it to but was pleased it has started conversations about online harms.
“When your kids’ world becomes more and more mediated by social media, it becomes harder as a parent to hold that line,” the Wollongong woman said.
“It’s kind of useful for the ban to be a talking point.”
Leave a Reply